[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-4371) consider refactoring slicer to indexinput.slice

["Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4371?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14000706#comment-14000706 ] 

Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-4371:
---------------------------------------

Looks cool.

I was a bit confused about ByteBufferIndexInput, because this one already has {{slice(...)}}. We should add {{@Override}} here, because it now implements abstract method.

I still have to think if close works as expected, but this did not change as before. Maybe this is my misunderstanding, but it is really confusing:
Slices are always closed by consumer code (not like clones) or not? If yes, all looks fine, but we should document this: clones do not need to be closed, but what about slices? I think we use the same FileDescriptor, so we also don't need to close the slices?

> consider refactoring slicer to indexinput.slice
> -----------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-4371
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4371
>             Project: Lucene - Core
>          Issue Type: Task
>            Reporter: Robert Muir
>         Attachments: LUCENE-4371.patch, LUCENE-4371.patch, LUCENE-4371.patch, LUCENE-4371.patch
>
>
> From LUCENE-4364:
> {quote}
> In my opinion, we should maybe check, if we can remove the whole Slicer in all Indexinputs? Just make the slice(...) method return the current BufferedIndexInput-based one. This could be another issue, once this is in.
> {quote}



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org